Edwards might be a Democrat, but he holds a lot of Republican beliefs. He is pro life,
and appears to be religious. Not that Democrats aren't religious, but there aren't any open
atheist Democrats, or Republicans especially. Trump is an atheist, but pretends to be
a Christian. To be fair, there are no "openly" atheist Democrats either, although there has to
be some who are.

Another similar race is in Kentucky, where a "Republican/Independent" is running as a Democrat. A person
whose husband is a Republican, who is an unregistered voter (cannot vote in primaries of their
party determine which candidate will represent their party).

Mitch McConnell seems to be a "career politician". His wife is in charge of the Department of Transportation, a political
appointed position.

To be honest, I've lost respect for him because he doesn't appear to be objective about the impeachment hearings, about
the government shutdown, which affects the Department of Transportation, and every transportation that is government
funded.

I'm not really a big fan of any of the leading Dems. I'd vote for any one of them before Trump but I'm not feeling the enthusiasm. I think Biden would beat him, otherwise it starts to get shaky fast - and even Biden could easily lose, he himself is sounding very shaky. I do feel positive about Warren, Biden, but not enthusiastic.

Kamala Harris is kind of a disappointing candidate for me, I wanted to support her but she hasn't done well and from what I've caught of it I don't like her campaign much. I think she has a kind of natural 'gravitas' that she isn't utilizing well. Also a potentially fantastic speaker... a lot of talent that isn't being used right.

Sherrod Brown is someone I would have liked to have seen run, maybe I'd like him? And I think he would have beaten Trump. I would have liked Andrew Cuomo to run too, it sure would have been entertaining.

But really I'm not enthusiastic about any of these people. I was for Bill Clinton, and Obama. And Hillary. I have a framed picture of Obama up on the wall at the place where I work, in the Oval Office talking on the phone during (I think) his first week in office.

I could be wrong, but Buttigieg seems a bit too calculated and contrived to me. I feel like I have no sense of who he is when I hear him speak. He could be very genuine and I just haven't heard him enough, but at this point I really have no read on him.

Are there any US politicians that you support besides Trump? It seems that you respect Warren?

Fuck I wrote big response to this but it didn't post when I hit submit. Basically I think Warren is ok in some areas, slightly dishonest and from Harry Reid's comments about her and her meetings with Clinton likely more of a pragmatist than presents herself as. Her wealth tax however is one of the most economically genocidal policies I've ever seen and people have no interest in looking into the problems or nuance of this proposal. Too many left-wing-political commentators without a basic understanding of finance or investment that just want to punish the rich, ultimately in a way that will backfire and have extremely negative results. The policy itself is also bad at raising revenue. Bernie is largely principled which I respect and as are his dedication to helping the people, however he doesn't appear even remotely pragmatic like I think Warren would be. I do think his comments about immigration before 2016, compared to his recent immigration plan which effectively advocates open borders shows a lack of principals however. Its a meme to compare him to the nordic state democratic socialists, however on virtually every policy position he is further to the left, and by a wide margin. It was a pathetic joke when Republican's referred to Obama as a socialist, for Bernie on the other hand his policies are getting as close as any Western nation on earth to it. If you enacted his policies in absolute again its a right-wing talking point, but you'd be looking in the medium term at something closer to Venezuela than Denmark in terms of economic strength and social wellbeing.

I'd support Yang and think he has the most viable left wing solutions to left wing problems, in fact I'd say he's the only progressive candidate that I don't think would be particularly negative for the economy. I despise his immigration platform however and particularly as he is a candidate focused on increasing the welfare state with a very direct UBI, immigration should be drastically tightened, not embraced. Pro-mass immigration and acceptance of undocumented immigrants is a right wing policy, not a left wing policy.

Trump is the status quo candidate. I support him because I see the country strengthening moderately economically under him and for the most part the average person is better off than during the Obama years, which I acknowledge weren't that bad. As on Russia-gate, I think I can fairly say I've been vindicated on my statements about his economic and foreign policy in comparison to the predictions and statements by those on the left. Even if you support a much more progressive America and I do, if you could put up with Obama as a genuine progressive and most did, you can put up with Trump. There's an amazing quote by Sam Harris early on in the Trump presidency that I think has summed up the delusional of the left over these years so far if you extend it:

"We've had 80 days of his presidency where basically nothing has happened, and it has been pure chaos."

Not a whole lot happening other than a whole lot of screaming and wetting of nappies. A little sad he and others can't seem to figure out where exactly the chaos is coming from.

As on Russia-gate, I think I can fairly say I've been vindicated on my statements

Ah, In what way do you believe you've been 'vindicated' about Mueller investigation ? You're only preaching to the choir who already agreed with you.

Though Mueller did not exonerate President Donald Trump on the question of whether or not he obstructed justice in the case, he didn't find enough evidence to recommend any such charges. Mueller deferred the decision to Barr who said he didn't see grounds for an obstruction case against the president.

Barr said Mueller did refer some aspects of his investigation to other offices – likely including federal prosecutors for the Southern District of New York – but the attorney general said we have seen the last of the indictments from the special counsel.

Gee, I wonder what that was about? Could it have been Guilianni and these two Ukranians?

Ah, how do you believe you've been vindicated about Russia? You're only preaching to the choir who already agreed with you.

And you haven't been vindicated on Ukraine either. You just choose to ignore the facts or take your talking points from Tucker Carlson. A man who is making his whole livihood off of defending the president.

and talk about media.

Fox News hosts are more involved with this presidents agenda and his talking points than anything I've seen in my life so far.

Yeah right, lets look again at what you said about the Russiagate again and compare it to what I said:

"This country is was founded on democracy. We are extremely flawed but the thing about Americans when we see we are attacked we tend to come together.
Russia attacked the foundation of what makes us unique. That’s the corny truth about America and Americans both left and right.

Yesterday didn’t feel as immediately destructive as 9/11 but I have that same clench in my stomach that we were attacked. And our president shared the stage with our attacker"

"So again why is Trump continuing to kiss Putin’s ass when they are attacking us STILL???
That doesn’t look fishy at all to you guys ??"

"Here is my conspiracy theory on Russia and I have said this to a very few people I’m close to as soon as all the Russia shit started coming up...it would make sense to me if Putin has been funneling money to Trump to be anti-obama and that was part of the reason he did the whole birtherism thing. This is just a theory so no one lose their shit for me to prove it its a conspiracy theory in my mind that would not shock me if came to be true.

But I don’t know how you can think it’s a hoax at this point. Even Ryan and McConnel ans Burr and Gowdy have all come out and said it’s not a hoax (in one way or another)."

""However, the more he behaves oddly towards Russia and the more that comes out with these meetings between members of his campaign with these people and their lack of informing th FBI, instead took these meetings, I’m starting to wonder. That’s not media hype I’m going by the indictments and the facts that come out about these meetings.
On top of that, is his rhetoric about Putin and his attack of our allies. I see no reasonable reason for it. It’s like he strokes Putin’s cock in the media.""

Yeah you're right, YOU were CLEARLY the one who was vindicated. Russia attacked American Democracy in a comparative way that makes one clench their stomach how they did when 3000 people were murdered during 9/11. Your little conspiracy theory turned out to be absolutely true, and Trumps "ass-kissing" of Putin was indeed because he had corrupt ties to Russia. You're absolutely fucking correct. Trump colluded with Russia.

Give me a fucking break.

I don't watch any Fox host nor Tucker Carlson more than 20 minutes a month max. I've said it many times before, but 80% of the media I watch is alternative progressive media.

""I will say this, I would vote for just about ANYONE democrats, independent, conservative, liberal, etc over Donald Trump""

You literally said this, if you can't read that statement and find *any* personal fault or lack of rationality and think this is even a semi-intelligent thing to say I genuinely feel sorry for you.

I wrote "probably a lot of content" based on my experiences reading some of his prior posts. The content level of his posts is high. I have not read that post yet. If it's just a big flame of you then I am mistaken and I'm sorry.

My post to her that got her hyped up largely consisted of me posting her own quotes, in particular some of those above. Hardly a flame, nor did I call her retarded which again like her little conspiracy about Trump/Russia collusion was a sad little fantasy playing out in her head.

Yeah you're right, YOU were CLEARLY the one who was vindicated. Russia attacked American Democracy in a comparative way that makes one clench their stomach how they did when 3000 people were murdered during 9/11. Your little conspiracy theory turned out to be absolutely true, and Trumps "ass-kissing" of Putin was indeed because he had corrupt ties to Russia. You're absolutely fucking correct. Trump colluded with Russia.

Give me a fucking break.

You literally said this, if you can't read that statement and find *any* personal fault or lack of rationality and think this is even a semi-intelligent thing to say I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Delusional.

you can keep calling me delusional but you really don't do yourself a service by doing so.

Russia did indeed attack our democracy. And they are still doing so.
I don't know if Trump has ties to Putin, but Russia did indeed attack our democracy.
If you don't see that then I don't know what to say about your cognitive ability.
and I think knowing that Russia attacks our democracy and our president kisses his ass is disgusting and humiliating and weakens us on the world stage.
It doesn't matter if he is in on it or not, if he is an unwitting asset or a willing one, he still makes us look like weak butt kissers to Putin.

The reason I said I would vote for anyone vs Trump is because (and please, go back to 2015 HairLossTalk to check me on this) I said way before anyone else was saying it that Trump has a severe NPD and that severity that he has it at makes him imcompetent to put his country before his own selfish needs

Something that ex congressman Republican Rick Santorum, a STRONG supporter of Trump, pretty much said in different words something similar the other night, he said that Trump puts himself first...(I can't find the quote but he said it on air two nights ago). He tried to walk it back, but he really can't walk it back cause he knew he put his foot in his mouth. But it's the truth. He can't process information for what is best for the country without putting himself first.
This is why I would never vote for him over an opponent.

Ah, In what way do you believe you've been 'vindicated' about Mueller investigation ? You're only preaching to the choir who already agreed with you.

Though Mueller did not exonerate President Donald Trump on the question of whether or not he obstructed justice in the case, he didn't find enough evidence to recommend any such charges. Mueller deferred the decision to Barr who said he didn't see grounds for an obstruction case against the president.

Barr said Mueller did refer some aspects of his investigation to other offices – likely including federal prosecutors for the Southern District of New York – but the attorney general said we have seen the last of the indictments from the special counsel.

Gee, I wonder what that was about? Could it have been Guilianni and these two Ukranians?

This is inanition to the Russian citizens indicted I forgot the number of them.

There's so much wrong here and virtually every post you make related to Russiagate, but look up what these people were charged for and tell me with a straight face that they are related to Russian collusion or Trump/Trump campaign Russian collusion.

There's so much wrong here and virtually every post you make related to Russiagate, but look up what these people were charged for and tell me with a straight face that they are related to Russian collusion or Trump/Trump campaign Russian collusion.

It's just a cheap and a very petty tactic on your part, you pick and choose what you want to address and as you do it, you add in your own language in a lame attempt to demean me, (which you do to just about anyone who disagrees with you that you start to sound like you're blowing your load).

Has anybody here heard of hair cloning, specifically in the United States or in Europe?

I'm asking because I believe the FDA is now doing trials to see if it's legitimate. (For people
not in the United States, that's is the government agency that makes sure that medications
are legitimate). To get FDA approval, a company has to spend millions of dollars, but they are
required to do it for prescription drugs (drugs prescribed by a medical professional, by law).

I'm reading articles about it, but I don't want to get my hopes up high. Histogen was supposed
to come out in 2011, so far only TSuji has made it's deadline date.

It's just a cheap and a very petty tactic on your part, you pick and choose what you want to address and as you do it, you add in your own language in a lame attempt to demean me, (which you do to just about anyone who disagrees with you that you start to sound like you're blowing your load).

now you are giving 'dislikes'

what an absolute child you are.

I've debated you on these issues a hundred times, virtually always using citations, always providing examples and information from a left-wing perspective. No one on earth could convince you, not even if you bothered to actually look at context and facts surrounding the situation as I did, or people on the left like Greenwald did. Again though, do you think Greenwald is a Trump apologist? Why do you think he specifically as a progressive left-winger is so adamant that this is a worthless conspiracy? Specifically being someone who was immersed in the issue significantly more than you were, and having debated it over and over. "Oh but Tucker Carlson"

Here again for the fifth time are your claims which you think vindicated you because they're absolutely genius and look even better in hindsight of course:

"This country is was founded on democracy. We are extremely flawed but the thing about Americans when we see we are attacked we tend to come together.
Russia attacked the foundation of what makes us unique. That’s the corny truth about America and Americans both left and right.

Yesterday didn’t feel as immediately destructive as 9/11 but I have that same clench in my stomach that we were attacked. And our president shared the stage with our attacker"

"So again why is Trump continuing to kiss Putin’s ass when they are attacking us STILL???
That doesn’t look fishy at all to you guys ??"

"Here is my conspiracy theory on Russia and I have said this to a very few people I’m close to as soon as all the Russia shit started coming up...it would make sense to me if Putin has been funneling money to Trump to be anti-obama and that was part of the reason he did the whole birtherism thing. This is just a theory so no one lose their shit for me to prove it its a conspiracy theory in my mind that would not shock me if came to be true.

But I don’t know how you can think it’s a hoax at this point. Even Ryan and McConnel ans Burr and Gowdy have all come out and said it’s not a hoax (in one way or another)."

""However, the more he behaves oddly towards Russia and the more that comes out with these meetings between members of his campaign with these people and their lack of informing th FBI, instead took these meetings, I’m starting to wonder. That’s not media hype I’m going by the indictments and the facts that come out about these meetings.
On top of that, is his rhetoric about Putin and his attack of our allies. I see no reasonable reason for it. It’s like he strokes Putin’s cock in the media.""

Yeah, you really did compare internet memes, posts, adds and an unproven hacking of Democrat servers that provided legitimate information to the general public about a major political candidate to 9/11. 3000 people dead and you're using that as a fucking comparison to "Russian interference". That conspiracy theory of yours sure aged well too. You're clearly vindicated, Trump colluded with Russia and I'm the one that was delusional.

"But so vacant is the Mueller investigation when it comes to supporting any of the prevailing conspiracy theories that it did not find even a single American whom it could indict or charge with illegally working for Russia, secretly acting as a Russian agent, or conspiring with the Russians over the election – not even Carter Page. That means that even long-time Russiagate skeptics such as myself over-estimated the level of criminality and conspiracy evidence that Robert Mueller would find:"

Probably worth reading at least *one* article by a left-wing progressive Russia sceptic rather than only listening to Rachel Maddow hey?

Is it more childish to give dislikes, or more childish to complain and act like a prissy little princess about it? What a delusional fucking cunt you are. Grown woman can't stand being given a fucking dislike on an internet forum. Cunt.

I've debated you on these issues a hundred times, virtually always using citations, always providing examples and information from a left-wing perspective. No one on earth could convince you, not even if you bothered to actually look at context and facts surrounding the situation as I did, or people on the left like Greenwald did. Again though, do you think Greenwald is a Trump apologist? Why do you think he specifically as a progressive left-winger is so adamant that this is a worthless conspiracy? Specifically being someone who was immersed in the issue significantly more than you were, and having debated it over and over. "Oh but Tucker Carlson"

Here again for the fifth time are your claims which you think vindicated you because they're absolutely genius and look even better in hindsight of course:

"This country is was founded on democracy. We are extremely flawed but the thing about Americans when we see we are attacked we tend to come together.
Russia attacked the foundation of what makes us unique. That’s the corny truth about America and Americans both left and right.

Yesterday didn’t feel as immediately destructive as 9/11 but I have that same clench in my stomach that we were attacked. And our president shared the stage with our attacker"

"So again why is Trump continuing to kiss Putin’s ass when they are attacking us STILL???
That doesn’t look fishy at all to you guys ??"

"Here is my conspiracy theory on Russia and I have said this to a very few people I’m close to as soon as all the Russia shit started coming up...it would make sense to me if Putin has been funneling money to Trump to be anti-obama and that was part of the reason he did the whole birtherism thing. This is just a theory so no one lose their shit for me to prove it its a conspiracy theory in my mind that would not shock me if came to be true.

But I don’t know how you can think it’s a hoax at this point. Even Ryan and McConnel ans Burr and Gowdy have all come out and said it’s not a hoax (in one way or another)."

""However, the more he behaves oddly towards Russia and the more that comes out with these meetings between members of his campaign with these people and their lack of informing th FBI, instead took these meetings, I’m starting to wonder. That’s not media hype I’m going by the indictments and the facts that come out about these meetings.
On top of that, is his rhetoric about Putin and his attack of our allies. I see no reasonable reason for it. It’s like he strokes Putin’s cock in the media.""

Yeah, you really did compare internet memes, posts, adds and an unproven hacking of Democrat servers that provided legitimate information to the general public about a major political candidate to 9/11. 3000 people dead and you're using that as a fucking comparison to "Russian interference". That conspiracy theory of yours sure aged well too. You're clearly vindicated, Trump colluded with Russia and I'm the one that was delusional.

"But so vacant is the Mueller investigation when it comes to supporting any of the prevailing conspiracy theories that it did not find even a single American whom it could indict or charge with illegally working for Russia, secretly acting as a Russian agent, or conspiring with the Russians over the election – not even Carter Page. That means that even long-time Russiagate skeptics such as myself over-estimated the level of criminality and conspiracy evidence that Robert Mueller would find:"

Probably worth reading at least *one* article by a left-wing progressive Russia sceptic rather than only listening to Rachel Maddow hey?

Is it more childish to give dislikes, or more childish to complain and act like a prissy little princess about it? What a delusional fucking cunt you are. Grown woman can't stand being given a fucking dislike on an internet forum. Cunt.

No one is acting like a prissy princess except you.
Now I’m a delusional cunt as opposed to just delusional.
You’re vocabulary is impressive.

And I see you’re back to using my old Quotes instead of addressing things point for point.

What did you say to me the other week? Something about my cognitive ability to understand my constitution?
Meanwhile I took criminal law and had an A and had seriously considered law school when I was encouraged to apply . I had wanted to join the FBI briefly.
My cousin is a Harvard constitutional lawyer who works for the Govt. who finds me quite intellegent,
so your opinion in my cognitive ability to understand written law means nothing to me.
You’ve been criticizing my intelligence and my mental state for weeks, as you have just about everyone else you disagree with by calling us retard delusional etc.

Meanwhile it was you pointing out when I was banned from HairLossTalk how the value of content on that forum went down the tubes.
But now I’m a delusional cunt?

People in the media always write controversial pieces because they are interested in getting readers,
and it is true a lot of things are false that are reported.

That said, people should not think the reason is politically based. There is just as much bullshit on FOX as
there is on CNN, and usually the stations that are "politically biased" are already known as being biased.

It's really a waste of brain cells to watch CNN. I also feel the same way about FOX news.

It's called sensationalism, not journalism. I see articles on Yahoo that are complete bullshit,
and not politically oriented all the time.

The best place, in my opinion, to research items are free libraries. Books usually have more research put into
them.

People in the media always write controversial pieces because they are interested in getting readers,
and it is true a lot of things are false that are reported.

It's called sensationalism, not journalism. I see articles on Yahoo that are complete bullshit,
and not politically oriented all the time.

Yes, it's about making people angry to get those clicks. Outlets like Vox, Slate and Vice are some of the worst offenders when it comes to that. Back in the early 2010's, it made sense, it's pretty much scientifically established that people get addicted to anger and outrage so they would produce insane pieces filled with nonsense and contradicting one another, just so they could get those clicks and ratings.

And for a moment, it worked really well, they got insanely rich. Now that's just a short-term benefit, it used to be new and a lot of people were just discovering social media and the internet. The problem is that it is simply not a viable long-term strategy. Just like a narcissistic manipulator in any social setting will often be successful in the short term, but it doesn't take long before they are unmasked.

Once they are unmasked, they lose the trust of the majority of the people out there, the only people that will stay on their side and defend their nefarious actions are the ones that have some vested interest in the toxic game they've put into place. In this case, that's the radical left, part of the democrats, or just simply people who are angry at the world (and partly got there by feeding themselves on the anger produced by those media).

In other words, the strategy those media used was and could only be a one-shot con job. Thanks to it, they grew very rich, very fast and now for the last few years, they've been trying to keep playing the same game. Except in doesn't work, people have caught up, we're now more aware of the existence of rage-bait and what it does to us. We also know that they've lied, deceived and launched countless smear campaigns against innocent people.

On the other side, you have people like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Lauren Shen, Sam Harris, Sargon of Akkad, Tim Pool, Tommy Robinson, Jonathan Pageau, Joe Rogan, etc. who have done just the opposite. Put out content that's designed to deepen your understanding of the world, long, calm conversations about truth, virtue, how to live a better life. People with morals, values, principles who weren't after the quick cash grab. They're still around, they're still growing, and they will be for the years, decades to come.

What Peterson often says that the best asset those people have on their side is that they don't think their audience is stupid. The same certainly couldn't be said of mainstream media outlets like Vox and Vice, especially considering the media strategy they put into place many years ago and are still desperately trying to maintain. This should be obvious, but somehow it isn't: don't write outrageous nonsense to make your audience angry.

And for a moment, it worked really well, they got insanely rich. Now that's just a short-term benefit, it used to be new and a lot of people were just discovering social media and the internet. The problem is that it is simply not a viable long-term strategy.

That is a persistent problem across all commercial enterprises in the west. Companies are headed/managed by business school graduates who have no interest in the long term prospects of the enterprise, they only care about short term growth (on which their salaries and bonuses are based). Wall street is a glaring example. EU financial mess is another.

That is a persistent problem across all commercial enterprises in the west. Companies are headed/managed by business school graduates who have no interest in the long term prospects of the enterprise, they only care about short term growth (on which their salaries and bonuses are based on). Wall street is a glaring example. EU financial mess is another.

That and they also can't admit when they're beaten. The bigger the structure, the bigger the ego of the company and its executives. There's also this pervasive idea of "too big to fail" while we've seen time and time again that it's often more "so big it will certainly fail".

This is was the main reason my first dream job turned into a nightmare. It's the usual story, they had to cut down expenses because we were competing with behemoths like Amazon. So they fired hundreds of people in the company, and I thought I was so lucky to not be one of them.

That's when they start sucking the people who stayed dry. "Everyone will need to put in more effort, we have to if we need to survive! Muh loyalty to the company, right?" And then what usually happens happens, you pass by coworkers crying in a meeting room, some disappear for weeks for mysterious reasons (burnout, what's that? Is it even real? They're just too weak!).

But the main idea is the same: aggressive decisions to get short-term benefits because hey, it makes sense on paper, right? If we do this, then this happens. Yeah, except so many variables are taken out of the equation, like your employees' health, well-being and dignity.

There is this idea that it has to be done otherwise the business dies. And they talk about that like it's unthinkable and simply cannot ever happen. It's like, people should recognize when they've lost. Now the same is happening to those mainstream media company who are desperately removing water from their sinking ship.

The EU is also a good example. It had many ideas and programs that might have seemed good on paper, that even worked for a while but I'd argue that its main failure, like Wall Street is that it thinks it can remove the individual from its calculations. Like Sargon of Akkad was saying about Guy Verhofstadt defending the EU because "it's necessary to beat China and the US economically!": this guy just sees human beings as numbers on a spreadsheet. "It will strip us of our soul but but hey, at least we'll grow and beat the competition, and that's what matters, right?!".